90 is about as much you will get if you maintain optimal lifespan. 75 % or so of the health optimal people are dead by then. After 90 it's genetics if none of the usual killers get to you first.
That's based on people who were essentially typical average people living typical average lives in their society. People here are different, in that we're actively trying to be healthy and are taking advantage of new compounds and technologies years or even decades before they might be commonplace among the general public. For most of us, 90 is decades away, and the pace of developments in longevity science continues to accelerate.
I am aware of the vast number of substances available which might prolong the human lifespan. But no one here has lived a life yet. We don't know if these therapies do anything in the long run. Most tests done are on short lived animals.
You have some pharmacological background? You must be far more informed than I regarding the number of cases when things for substance AAA looked stellar in early testing-- only to do nothing of value in real human biology.
It would be utterly shocking for me if this wasn't eventually, when science gives us the prospect to do the big mortality trials (or run digital high res fast forward human body biology simulations), the case for the majority of substances debated online. I bet most stuff would only produce marginal benefits. A few best cases maybe giving 1-9 years if started in an early age and dosed correctly.
I do have a pharma background, and yes, I'm quite familiar with the high likelihood that a compound that looks good in preclinical work will fail in the clinic for a variety of reasons. Sometimes compounds get labeled as failures because they chose to look at the wrong endpoint, or the trial design is poor, and suddenly everyone in the risk-averse pharma world or the black-and-white medical world is no longer interested in the compound. Biology is complicated. The vast majority, perhaps nearly all of the compounds that have been discussed online for years will do little or nothing to alter the rate of aging or maximal lifespan. These days there are some new compounds that I would not be so quick to dismiss. You also need to consider the value of a "curve squaring" intervention. That is something that extends average lifespan without increasing maximum lifespan. The curve in question is the survival vs time curve. Some people dismiss curve squaring as irrelevant, but I don't. Because biogerontology and regenerative medicine is developing at an accelerating rate, staying alive an extra five or ten or thirty years could make a huge difference in your long term survival. An intervention doesn't need to alter the rate of aging in order to make you live thirty years longer; it only needs to keep you from dying thirty years too soon. Such a compound wouldn't work for everyone, but if you were slated to die of a massive MI at 50, and you prevented that, it could work for you.
